Senate Repeals DADTFollow

I answered your question. You didn't like the answer. Nothing else to discuss.

Read the article I linked from the Dept. of Defense. Or don't, and I'll summarize it for you: You're wrong.

Getting a little tired of you trying the same **** over and over. It's obviously not working.

This isn't the only question/statement that you dodged anyway. You have yet countered the statement that if the DoD isn't sure about your sexuality, then your sexuality is indeed a secret. That completely contradicts your claim of "as long as you keep it a secret".

There's a difference between responding to a question and answering the question. That's like me asking you if you would rather live in California or New York and you say "Texas". You responded to the question, but you didn't answer it.

I asked you if you call women who express anxiety of men seeing them naked, not because of sexual assault or harassment, heterophobes. You have not said "yes" or "no", you said "Texas". You IMPLIED that the ONLY reason why ALL women that experience anxiety of men seeing them naked is because of sexual assault. You didn't STATE that was your claim, you just left it up in the open. So, I gave counter examples to that implication and said that if that is indeed your implication, then please defend it. You have not defended your implication.

So, I ask you a question, you respond with an implication, but no answer. I ask you to solidify your statement by either answering the question or explaining the perceived implication and you haven't responded. So, no you haven't addressed any of my concerns, you're just making implications without defending them.

I say again, if you don't want to answer the question because you think all anxiety is due to sexual assault/harassment, then say "No, I don't refer to those women as bigots/heterophobes because ALL women ONLY express anxiety of SEXUAL ASSAULT and not because of any sort of modesty, shame or privacy".

I'll help you out, just copy and paste that quote, then we can move on. If that is not your answer, then please tell me which part is inaccurate and I'll fix it or better yet, just answer the freakin question.



Again, I want you to show me in the policy where it supports your claim, not what other people think it says. If you can't show me in the Policy, that I freakin provided by the way, then we're wasting time. You know how many people think Doggy-style sex is unauthorized in the military due to the sodomy laws? This is because they didn't take the time out to read the actual document where it says vaginal sex is authorized, which means it doesn't matter what position you're in as long as it's vaginal sex.

So, until you show me in the actual Homosexual Policy, which you can google, where it states that sentence, then we're wasting time. At the end of the day, it's what's in the Homosexual Policy that governs everything, not what you, me, Mr. Smith or General Smith thinks. Just like everyone stated earlier about the repeal in the first place. Every military personnel can be against it, that doesn't mean it can't and/or wont happen.



Wait, what if I told you that I "lost" it and say that I already answered your question like Kaichi did?

Anyways, besides the fact that I've mentioned these topics in other threads, I'm actually surprised that you would think that comfort isn't an issue that the military takes in concern. Any Army leader knows the saying "Take care of your Soldiers, and they will take care of you". This means if you show concern about their morale and well being, they will go that extra mile to ensure success in your missions.

Anyway, I will start with Command Climate Surveys




I.G. (Inspector's General)



EO Equal Opportunity




Edited, Jan 17th 2011 1:22am by Almalieque

I don't understand what distinction you're trying to make here, but I'm sure it's a stupid and pedantic one that attempts to dodge the fact that you were wrong when you made the claim that homosexuals weren't allowed/supposed to be in the military.



And I answered no. General discomfort has not and never has been considered a valid reason for segregation in our population in general. We aren't talking about general discomfort. You're being intentionally obtuse again.

The DoD has announced how the policy is to be interpreted. It's completely ******* ridiculous that you think we should ignore THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THEIR OWN POLICY. That's like saying the Supreme Court has no place interpreting the Constitution. THAT'S THEIR JOB. Nevermind that historically, allowing gays in the military was the reason DADT was implemented! How stupid do you have to be to think that they intentionally changed the legislation from "No gays allowed," to "Still no gays allowed!"?

Answer: Exactly as stupid as everyone says.

This is why I want to argue with what the Homosexual Policy said and not what other people said about it. In my quote that I gave you, the policy said that you can get discharged if it looks like you might do something gay. That means, you didn't do anything gay nor did you admit to being gay. I've stated that numerous times now. That means, the military doesn't actually know your sexuality, they are assuming it, which means that they don't know, which means your sexuality is indeed a secret.

The fact that you're responding to this as if it were your first time reading this, only supports the idea that you weren't actually reading all of my posts.

Thank you, finally! See, that wasn't that hard.




Obtuse? Need I remind you that my entire argument is that a man can express discomfort about public nudity with homosexuals and not be a bigot/homophobe? That's not obtuse at all, it's exactly the same thing. Since you don't refer to women as heterophobes for expressing discomfort about public nudity with heterosexuals, why do you call men homophobes and bigots for having the same feelings towards homosexuals?

General discomfort? We're not talking about general discomfort. We're talking about privacy with nudity, there's a big difference. If people were separated in the office, then you can make the 'General discomfort" argument, but that isn't the case.

There are well known accepted scenarios that involve privacy. These are in the restroom, changing clothes and in any place where there might be nudity. Guess what Sherlock?! These are the exact scenarios that we are referring to. This isn't some general discomfort, "I don't want share an office next to gay Bill", that you are referring to.

Men and women are separated for privacy issues. You can deny that all you want, but that is the truth. Even now a days, locker rooms and bathrooms all have dividers, stalls and curtains. So if you think this isn't about maximizing privacy, then you're sadly mistaken.



I'm not naive to think there's no possibility of me being wrong, I just want you to show me in the policy where I'm wrong. What's ridiculous is you refusing to show me in the Policy that supports what you say the DoD claims. Like the discussion I had earlier in this thread. At this level, the DoD is nothing but politicians. They will say anything to please and shut the people up. I've said this before, a single person maybe intellectual, but a mass of people becomes less intellectual.

Example 1: In this very same case, the Chief of Staff claims that repealing DADT needs to be done. Ok, so tell me why the military didn't make any self progress to repeal it themselves? How come he didn't give a time line, saying that it would best to wait till the war is over. Yea, when is that exactly??? This lead straight into my next example.

Example 2: A few months ago, there was a ton of heat with the "War in Iraq". President Obama made this big speech on how "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is over. People were excited that OIF was done... yet, we're still over there. Nothing has changed but the name and maybe the focus of the battle. Now, the media is off their backs and nothing had changed.

These two examples are the reasons why I want you to show me in the policy. If you want to fall prey to the mass of people who don't know what's going on, but just follows what the media says, then so be it. For me, until I see it in writing, it doesn't exist and you're making this overly complicated because I even sourced the policy for you.



If you would have actually read the policy, you know, the one I sourced, you would understand. I already answered that question for you. The reason for the change was because your sexuality is your privacy. The military was unfairly targeting homosexuals by asking them their sexuality. The compromise for DADT was that they were not going to ask you your sexuality or try to disclose it. That enabled homosexuals a chance to join without lying and serving without being unfairly targeted. That is what DADT is all about. No where did it say that homosexuality was now authorized, because if it were, you wouldn't be discharged for it.





Edited, Jan 17th 2011 7:03pm by Almalieque

^^ The Golden Last.

Oh, you have no idea.

I'm just glad you finally understand that you were wrong about homosexuals not being allowed in the military. You may try to dance around the semantics of it, but you know, and I know, and practically everyone else that knows anything about it knows that that was the purpose of DADT.

I don't. I genuinely wish you would end up on the wrong end of a "training accident".

And LAST.

Where is he?

Somewhere in the USA, I'm sure he has been more specific but it's all more or less the same to me.

I'd give you more details but that's all I know.
Maybe if you ask him nicely he'll tell you where he lives so you can shoot him in the face.

He calls TN home, but I don't think he's stationed there.

Edited, Jan 18th 2011 5:51pm by Uglysasquatch

Depends how quickly they can jump out of the way...